Re: Replace use malloc() & friend by memory contexts for plperl and pltcl

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replace use malloc() & friend by memory contexts for plperl and pltcl
Date: 2016-11-08 03:48:25
Message-ID: CAB7nPqS46GXV_A6bSXj-AWXGU6EUTeixX0OhDvBzAxaJpacpxg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 8/31/16 2:57 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Seems like a good idea, I'm guessing it slipped through the cracks. Do you
> want to add it to the next CF?

0001 has been pushed as d062245b.

> Why mark one as volatile but not the other? Based on [1] ISTM there's no need to mark either as volatile?

plan_cxt is referenced in the PG_TRY block, and then modified in the
PG_CATCH block, so it seems to me that we had better mark it as
volatile to be POSIX-compliant. That's not the case of oldcontext.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2016-11-08 04:08:45 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2016-11-08 03:43:16 Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)